I think many of the older gamers, ones that have been around for longer value graphics less than those that started gaming a generation or two ago. In my experience that seems to be the case. The gamers that I know that are in their mid to late 20s or early 30s just aren't awed by how games look the same way 15-19 year olds seem to be. We'll discuss it further and get some opinions, but let me first talk about why I'm just not that impressed.

As somebody that's been gaming since the atari days I've seen a many a graphical revolutions in my time. I remember when having more than 16 colors on screen was vibrant, I remember "blast Processing" and "FX chips", I remember the days when 32 bit meant something and was something awesome, and 64 bit was just incredible. I remember a time when Shen mue was considered life like, almost real. I am not really impressed any more. I looked at the Crysis and Gran Turismo 5 and I really don't care. Why? Because through out all my years of gaming none of my memories of gaming are related to how a game looked. Save for one, and that's Mario 64 because that truly seemed revolutionary at the time. It wasn't because it was high quality, it was because it was new.

I remember plenty of games that were gorgeous in their day. Super Mario Brothers 3, Resident evil, Legend Of Zelda Ocarina of time, the aforementioned Shen mue. And I have lots of great memories of those games. But very few if any of those memories are of me being in awe of how gorgeous they are. It's of how they played, the stories in them, the adventures in them, the atmosphere. People say graphics draw you into their world, create that atmosphere. Ocarina of time looks terrible by todays standard, trees made of two intercrossing sections of 2d sprites, blurry textures, low poly count characters. Resident evil? How does that even create atmosphere with low detail blurry characters made of a few handfuls of polygons, laid akwardly over blurry still images. How would a game that looks so terrible be able to draw some one in? Is it relative to the time? It seemed realistic then? Reality looked more pixelated in 1998 I guess. Having watched videogames evolved since the days where alligators were just green blobs on the screen I can say without any doubt that a game with terrible graphics can suck you in just as much as a game that has state of the art graphics. It's was and is and will always be not about how a game looks but about how they play.

We're visual creatures by nature and like pretty things. But after having seen the good, the bad, and the ugly, one begins to see how very unimportant graphics are compared to everything else. In ten years todays sixteen year olds aren't going to care about how god awful Bioshock or MGS4 look because despite all the graphical flaws, the unrealism, they will have been sucked into that world and look back fondly not on the wall textures but on the fun they had with them. But for now it will still be "OMGZ L00k @T T3H GRAPHICS!". And when they get older and look back fondly on the beautiful games of today, the newer generation of gamers will be saying "How did you even get into this 'god of war' game? It's just to oldschool for me. I'm going to go play Tekken 12 with it's TRUE 5D GRAPHICS!!"

 Any thoughts? Any older gamers here that still salivate over bump mapping, and dynamic lighting? Any younger generation gamers that are looking forward to a bunch of innovative ugly games more than graphically amazing games? Discuss.

Um I'm a young gamer , but I know what you are saying. I used to be a amazed by graphics , but it seems to me now after you go past about 5 mins you just get used to it , and it doesn't seem any better for a game the generation before. I'm young , but I actually started on the snes and n64 around the same time and preferred my snes even though the n64 had better graphics. Graphics are an extra and as long as they are using the console the way they are suppose to I don't really care. Now if a dev is giving you graphics that could have been done on a console that was made long ago you get really pissed. That is just a lazy thing to do. They should give us the best possible in gameplay and in graphics , but sadly some developers just don't care.
To sum it up I believe graphics should be good enough based on what console it's on. I'm not amazed on the picture itself , but on how well the machine produces it.

Yes.

I have played since The Amiga and I also feel that gfx are no the ultimate feature to be a TOP game.

I like to play proven oldies better than average news games ...

I've been gaming on computer since I was 4 (1989) and consoles since this generation. I find better graphics to be good, but we have reached the stage now where it's artistic expression that really distinguishes a game. Games like Bioshock, Halo 1 (For the bright colourful art work), GT5 - Artwork is realism and immersion. Lost Odyssey etc. I think over time I have become less tolerant of bad artwork, and I feel that good graphics is only good if it complements the same attention to art style. I find I get sucked into a game now, that has good art work. When you've seen the same corridor a million times, the same gun... The same badly textured road, it gets old. I want to see something new! Not just the same @$#% as always.

I look to studios that make good art as well as good technology. I still play a lot of games when I can, it's just that some games don't interest me so much anymore. You can say that games are becoming more subjective though, when everything was generic... it's hard to offend people! Bioshock rocks... I actually haven't finished it. I decided to wait for a new GFX card.

I have never been impressed with any interpretation of "realism" in graphics, even the early pictures of that heavy rain game just made me feel odd rather than impressed me (I assume it was the uncanny valley thing, the main woman in the trilers is just scary)

The heavy rain lady never impressed me...I was more impressed with HL2.

"Realism" depends on so many things, but I think it's more important to nail animation, voice acting, etc, before polygons and lighting.

Interesting question. I think, as a longtime gamer, that I'm usually only REALLY impressed with graphics at the beginning of a new generation and near its' end (for obvious reasons). However, graphics help set the atmosphere of a game, so even if they don't 'amaze' me, they can help to draw me in.

Case in point (kill me now): I don't find Call of Duty 4's graphics very impressive. It looks very nice, and the game is very immersive--in fact it looks great. But I was far more impressed with CoD2 when it came out, because it was more of a gigantic leap than CoD4.

Also, as much as we say graphics don't make the game, there are certain games that just wouldn't be the same without the most realistic-possible graphics. For example, even if it was released in the late 90's and was the best-looking game of its' time, with the same game mechanics and everything, I don't think I would have liked Gears of War on the N64. THAT is a game that needs the graphics to enhance the gameplay.

But those kinds of games are rare for me now.



Also, with regard to newer gamers thinking games look better, yes. My mom saw me playing RE4 Wii edition and thought it had the best graphics ever.

Eh, I don't think I was ever impressed with graphics. Even the move from 2-D to 3-D.

Well actually that seemed like a step back to me since most 3-D games looked a lot uglier then their 2-D counterparts and really didn't get back to "even" in most games in my mind till mid PS2.

More complex doesn't equal better looking.

Honestly graphics could be photo realitic and i don't think i'd be impressed.

I'll take better graphics over worse graphics of course if all else is equal...

But even if it were to take away one enjoyable part of gameplay i'd rather play it on N64 or Atari level level graphics.

The one exception being early PS1 graphics.  Those might effect my appreciation of gameplay a bit.  I'd still take the PS1 level graphics with better gameplay over the opposite however.

Honestly, I don't like realism... I like complete fantasy. The improving graphics seems to prompt companies to get closer and closer to real life appearances in people and backgrounds. Personally I prefer cartoonish or just creative characters in most of my games.

As far as graphics the last time those sold me on a game or system was during the first year of the SNES so it's been a while. Sure since I've said such things as "Wow that looks nice" or "ohh I like that!" as often in games on the PS3 as I have for games on the Wii...

Note: Yes I have an HDTV and the best cables for these items to compare, it doesn't excite me to see realism in my games, I play them to escape realism.. Edit: To me, graphics improving used to serve a function to provide depth of field to a game and to provide realistic movement and the ability to discern things in the foreground and background. This gen really hasn't seen a marked improvement in that over the last gen(even comparing PS2 to PS3) so it doesn't serve that function to me anymore, now it's just eye candy which is fine and well but again I refer you to my argument against realism.